Drinking Cow/Buffalo or any animal's Milk is Ethical ?

I feel, we are doing UN-justice to animals getting milk from their for day-today food needs. Right from schools and child-hood, we have been taught to drink milk of animals, specially in India we have cow & buffalo milk.
When I realized that its meant for animals(their new born babies) and not for human beings, we are really doing un-justice. Should not we find an alternative for milk ? should not we teach children that its not ethical to grab milk of new born babies for human beings.
We modern science, and techniques, adding the automation, it has really became a life like living machine for animals

should not be there a right to the animals to refuse giving their milk for human beings for their day-today consumption ?

Cows are fully sentient, capable of pain and pleasure, fear and desire, families and friendships, just like humans. Dairy milk means the mother is raped with a metal rod repeatedly throughout her short life before she becomes a hamburger in order to be made permanently pregnant (excepting 2-3 months between pregnancies) and hooked up to a machine that sucks out pus and blood, and her babies are torn from her to suffer the same fate or become veal in their first week of life, so that we can drink her milk, which was in zero way meant for our bodies, instead. We treat other species as we would definitely NOT hope a species in our dominant position would treat us, which is morally hypocritical and unjustifiable.

Additionally, animal products are unhealthy for us, the healthiest diet is plant-based nutrition (see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any preconceived (culturally-enforced) notions about unhealthy veganism!). And on top of that, livestock require incredible amounts of water and their metabolisms take away from the food supply that could be used instead for the 1.5 million children who die of starvation every year (livestock use 1/3 of our arable land) -- and livestock contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, so in terms of the disastrous effects of climate change, it is necessary for us to STOP consuming animal products.

Ultimately, they do not need to suffer and die for us to live, so we must treat them as we would have those in power over us treat us.

Comment deleted

Jul 2 2013:
A) Vegan means NO animal products, but yeah I realize that some things I do not have consumer control over -- the point is to vote with our dollars as much as possible to do unto others as we would have them do to us were we the powerless ones. The only acceptable parameter is that which is necessary for survival (soo... very few people can claim that).

B) Plants do not have central nervous systems nor brains, plants do not have the fundamentally identical neurological structures that you share with other vertebrates (and even invertebrates with brains, albeit on a much more rudimentary scale -- but even flies have dopamine for the experience of pleasure, and wasps respond with a fight impulse if you threaten them).

C) What "crap"? You mean all this "information" that you would rather keep out-of-sight and out-of-mind, pretending you are not financially enabling it? You can never again use the excuse that you did not know. Feels great to be pulled out of your comfort zone and learn something new, doesn't it!! Now that we know better, we can do better :)

Comment deleted

Jul 2 2013:
If you responded to the informational answer I posted with guilt, that is because you understand that it is wrong to use and abuse others merely because they are powerless to you, but you are struggling with habits that have been trained into you. Veganism is the healthiest option, the most eco-friendly option, and the most ethical option. Win-win-win. Those are the benefits! :)

Comment deleted

Jul 2 2013:
Mhm. So if I were a child who had been a vegan for only a week, that would make livestock not responsible for more GHGs than transportation, would make animal products necessary for our health, and would make it perfectly reasonable for YOU to not do unto others as you would have those more powerful than you do to you? Kewl.

Jun 19 2013:
You can trust me. As a teenage I worked in a dairy and Milked cows. :)

I understand your question about a treating a cow like a milk manufacturing machine. It's already done. Should we continue to do this? I guess that is the question. I don't drink milk. I do eat yogurt. But I am looking into yogurts made from other products like soy milk. The key, of course, to yogurt is the bacteria and the protein products they make out of the milk.

I see your real question and yes it does make me think.

In the future when we have mastered the full relm of genetics, we will be able to make any product we can imagine, food, ets. Until them, we need to use the animals because they can do it for us. I don't think we are hurting them.... well maybe the chickens might complain a bit. Pigs too, along with beef cattle.

Jun 17 2013:
Each culture defines what they accept as ethical. Whatever these people find acceptable is acceptable. I know people that only eat vegetables. OK,. This is not an ethical question, it is a question of preference or choice.
Now, I find it unethical to substitute manufactured food for real food, which is quite common today. That's me.

If we discuss healthful eating, I have opinion on that matter. Man is an omnivore. He is biologically created to use a variety of foodstuffs. If man restricts his consumption, he could develop negative biological consequences.
However, man has been able to adapt his nutritional needs based on his environment. Peoples of the far north have survived on a diet of little vegetables and much fatty animal protein. Are they unethical? People of southwest Asia won't eat cloven hoofed animals. I have no ethical question about this, my only question would be... how can one not love bacon?

Jul 2 2013:
Humans evolved to be able to consume animal products when necessary for survival, but that does not make them healthy -- recent literature has started to bring to light the fact that the healthiest option for a human in an entirely plant-based diet (Kaiser now recommends this, and see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any culturally imposed notions that veganism is anything but the healthiest option!).

As for ethics, if we want those who have power over us to treat us as they would like to be treated in our less powerful position, than we must treat all those fully sentient beings powerless to us as we would have them treat us were we the powerless ones. Which means no blood-and-pus-sucking nipple-clamping machines, no permanent pregnancy, no stealing children away to be hacked up for veal in the first week of their life so that another animal may drink the milk produced for the baby.

Jul 2 2013:
I am not so sure of the vegan life. At the senior center, vegans are pretty much withered old ladies and the rounder jolly ones keep complaining that we don't get enough steak. But, what do I know?

Jul 2 2013:
A person can be a junk food unhealthy vegan just like an omnivore can. There are plenty of obese people around, and none of them are vegan (nor do vegans have anywhere near the rates of our common health ailments as animal products consumers).

Jun 16 2013:
As long as we eat cows, drinking their milk is not too hard to accept. If you think about it, a milk cow is actually taken better care of then a cow raised just for meat. It's certainly weird to be drinking the milk of another animal, but given the population of the world I can see why it's a popular drink. It's cheap, plentiful, and nutritious. I think in the age of bio-engineering, we will see mass outbreaks of cancer, and other diseases due to milk being "engineered".

Jul 2 2013:
Coconut and almond milks are my favourite substitutes. Cows are fully sentient, capable of pain and pleasure, fear and desire, families and friendships, just like humans. Dairy milk means the mother is raped with a metal rod repeatedly throughout her short life before she becomes a hamburger in order to be made permanently pregnant (excepting 2-3 months between pregnancies) and hooked up to a machine that sucks out pus and blood, and her babies are torn from her to suffer the same fate or become veal in their first week of life, so that we can drink her milk, which was in zero way meant for our bodies, instead. We treat other species as we would definitely NOT hope a species in our dominant position would treat us, which is morally hypocritical and unjustifiable.

Additionally, animal products are unhealthy for us, the healthiest diet is plant-based nutrition (see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any preconceived (culturally-enforced) notions about unhealthy veganism!). And on top of that, livestock require incredible amounts of water and their metabolisms take away from the food supply that could be used instead for the 1.5 million children who die of starvation every year (livestock use 1/3 of our arable land) -- and livestock contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, so in terms of the disastrous effects of climate change, it is necessary for us to STOP consuming animal products.

Ultimately, they do not need to suffer and die for us to live, so we must treat them as we would have those in power over us treat us.

Jul 2 2013:
Your points are valid...but...
I was taught that humans are omnivores, and are biologically designed to consume all sorts of edibles. Further,
we have a choice in food selections or at least many of us do.
My concerns of people who decide to limit their diets to one type of food. A nice lady in our neighborhood comes to all the block parties but she is vegan and we all respect that. She is not like the other ladies, who are not vegans, they seem more joyful, more living life. This lady is very thin, looks drawn, quiet and surprisingly so is her husband. He also is a vegan, but I think only when with her. We have gone to ' Boy's nite out" and he's had a burger with the rest of us. But, he is kind of said. I might mention this is a senior's community.
I am not sure that any of this is relevant to vegan diets, it just that I have never met a warm, jolly vegan.

Jun 18 2013:
No! It's so gross when you think about it.
Humans claim to be the most superior species but we're the only species that drinks the milk of another animal and we drink milk past infancy...
i dont see cows and goats knocking each other over to milk us
EWWW

Comment deleted

Jun 19 2013:
You are taking this from the sublime to the ridicules. Is that ethical?
I am still feeling bad or is it unethical about drinking milk. I just use a little in my morning coffee.
Then there is the ice cream with whipped cream, and banana cream pie,...
I am just one rotten human being

Comment deleted

Comment deleted

Jun 19 2013:
Did I make this connection? It was not intended. Sometimes when I respond to relies from my email, I forget where I am.... Being my age forgetting where I am is a common occurrence
I lived in Arabia. Women don't drive usually there. I don't blame them. I didn't drive there either.
I had a driver. Traffic is absolutely deranged. Think demolition derby. They had all the signs and lights for traffic safety, but as it was explained to me, those stop signs are for the other people. It seems that all drivers held that thought. I understand the king did not allow women to drive there. Good safety choice. It protected future generation of children
So, if Ms. al-Sharif dared drive in Arabia,.... she's a better man then me.
.

Jun 16 2013:
Well, if that's your major problem with the dairy industry, I don't think you have much to worry about, at least in countries where there is a large production. In large production countries, the cows have been bred to produce a lot more milk than the calf needs. Now taking the calf away at an early age may be seen as cruel, but it is actually fed its mothers milk while it's too small to eat other foods, so taking the milk away from the calf and putting it in the mouth of humans isn't exactly how it happens, at least not in areas where large amounts of milk is produced.

Then you have tribal societies, and other small farms and villages, they don't usually have the 'heavy milk production' cows, and do take milk from the calves, however the amount they are taking compared to industrial scale production isn't usually large enough to have a negative effect on the calves. If they do take too much, they will probably slaughter the cow as well, as it is likely that they have a food source problem, rather than it being the normal status quo between them and their animals. They depend too much on the calves to risk taking too much milk.

Jul 10 2013:
Look it comes down to this: The milk from another mammal's mammary glands was not meant for us (unless you think the image of an adult human sucking on a cow's udder is "natural" (we can't even digest human milk after infancy, much less imagine doing so as adults)); and for us to have it, we have to steal the baby calves from their mother (who was made to be pregnant her entire very short life before becoming a hamburger) so we can drink her milk instead. There is NOTHING ethical about separating an infant from their mother. And not only is it not meant for us, and as such do we not need it, but it is also terribly unhealthy for us (food pyramids that say otherwise were bought by the dairy industry). It is wrong.

Jul 2 2013:
Cows are fully sentient, capable of pain and pleasure, fear and desire, families and friendships, just like humans. Dairy milk means the mother is raped with a metal rod repeatedly throughout her short life before she becomes a hamburger in order to be made permanently pregnant (excepting 2-3 months between pregnancies) and hooked up to a machine that sucks out pus and blood, and her babies are torn from her to suffer the same fate or become veal in their first week of life, so that we can drink her milk, which was in zero way meant for our bodies, instead. We treat other species as we would definitely NOT hope a species in our dominant position would treat us, which is morally hypocritical and unjustifiable.

Additionally, animal products are unhealthy for us, the healthiest diet is plant-based nutrition (see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any preconceived (culturally-enforced) notions about unhealthy veganism!). And on top of that, livestock require incredible amounts of water and their metabolisms take away from the food supply that could be used instead for the 1.5 million children who die of starvation every year (livestock use 1/3 of our arable land) -- and livestock contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, so in terms of the disastrous effects of climate change, it is necessary for us to STOP consuming animal products.

Ultimately, they do not need to suffer and die for us to live, so we must treat them as we would have those in power over us treat us.

Jul 2 2013:
Coconut and almond milks are my favourite substitutes. Cows are fully sentient, capable of pain and pleasure, fear and desire, families and friendships, just like humans. Dairy milk means the mother is raped with a metal rod repeatedly throughout her short life before she becomes a hamburger in order to be made permanently pregnant (excepting 2-3 months between pregnancies) and hooked up to a machine that sucks out pus and blood along with her milk, and her babies are torn from her to suffer the same fate or become veal in their first week of life, so that we can drink her milk, which was in zero way meant for our bodies, instead. We treat other species as we would definitely NOT hope a species in our dominant position would treat us, which is morally hypocritical and unjustifiable.

Additionally, animal products are unhealthy for us, the healthiest diet is plant-based nutrition (see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any preconceived (culturally-enforced) notions about unhealthy veganism!). And on top of that, livestock require incredible amounts of water and their metabolisms take away from the food supply that could be used instead for the 1.5 million children who die of starvation every year (livestock use 1/3 of our arable land) -- and livestock contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, so in terms of the disastrous effects of climate change, it is necessary for us to STOP consuming animal products.

Ultimately, they do not need to suffer and die for us to live, so we must treat them as we would have those in power over us treat us.

Jun 17 2013:
Now I am confused. You are linking the ethical consumption of cow's milk with the much larger question of domestication of animals? Why stop there, Man has domesticated plants, fish and other creations in our environment..
I read that at the end of the last ice age, there were about 30,000 humans left on earth. It took about 20,000 years before man learned to domesticate animals and some plants. It happened in the valley of the rivers in Iraq,. the golden triangle.
An area that has been described as the garden of Eden. Which may be true. It was the beginning of human civilization. If this hadn't happened, could you select another time in our history where our civilization could have begun? Are you saying our human civilization is unethical?

Read Jainism, a sect in India. you will be surprised to note their eating habits. Its Unique, at extreme end of the spectrum. Some of them even cover their mouths so that they may not swallow any living thing accidentally.

Jul 2 2013:
Perhaps choosing to do no sentient beings harm, regardless of their species designation, would better position us to lead our society out of the discriminations we insist upon within our own species category.

Jul 2 2013:
Well, it could cut both ways, Kelly. To me, milk tastes better than plants, and when I'm well-fed with food I enjoy, I probably treat my fellow human beings better. So for me it might be better to drink milk.

Also, my impression is that plants are somewhat sentient. Haven't they done experiments where, if you hold fire close to a plant, the plant feels something like fear?

I look forward to your response, no doubt I'll learn something from you.

Jul 2 2013:
False. It's a taste habit that leaves your tongue in a month. The instant gratification of transient hedonistic pleasure seeking does not contribute to overall human happiness nor to fulfillment. Additionally, since you have yet to explore a wide variety of plant-based foods, you do not know what you will like or dislike. And if we are not doing unto others as we would have those more powerful than us do to us, than we give those to whom we are powerless the right to harm us. If you can find the study you mention, I would be very interested to look it up! But even so, they still do not have the fundamentally identical neurological structures that you share with other vertebrates for the experiences of pain, pleasure, fear, and desire. If you are screaming and crying, it is because you want the pain to stop, you are calling for help -- same with the cows. Additionally, one must eat plants to survive, but one does not have to brutalize and slaughter other likewise (recognizably) sentient beings to survive (beings who also have metabolisms and so consume, for cows, 7-13lbs of grain per pound of meat). You wouldn't force an innocent human or to your dog or your friend's dog to be permanently pregnant and hooked up to a machine that mutilates her, sucking out pus and blood with her milk and stealing away her children so that you could drink her milk instead (which was never meant for you -- think about sucking on a cow's utter for a second) while her babies are made to suffer the same fate or are shoved into immobilizing crates to be hacked up for their soft baby flesh, so why an innocent other fully sentient animal with whom you can empathize as well as you can with another human?

Jul 3 2013:
Well, Kelly, as far as studies on plants go, I haven't looked into them thoroughly. I would think you could google "sentience of plants" or something similar and find much info on what I'm referring to. I did read the wikipedia article on "The Secret Life of Plants," which I believe was a film on this subject (with a soundtrack by Stevie Wonder), and it certainly seemed to maintain that plants are quite sentient.

As far as milk goes, well, I've written about this before on TED, for the last five years I've been literally living on milk, every day I drink about two gallons of organic skim milk, and I don't eat or drink anything else, 365 days/year. I do it for my health, when I eat solid food, including vegetables, I don't feel as good, I find that the milk is easier for my body to process as it is food already in liquid form. Since I don't think my body is very different from other people's, I believe milk is better for other people as well, for the same reason, that it is very easy to process, but perhaps they aren't as sensitive to the different way that milk makes them feel versus solid food. So that might be a great argument for milk, that you feel better on it, which makes sense, as it is the first food nature provides.

Beyond that I don't have much of an answer for you. I could say that there are many more cows in the world because we drink milk, in other words many cows get to live life who never would have been born if we didn't farm them. Also, one wonders if cows get any satisfaction out of knowing that some creature is drinking their milk and enjoying it, even if it isn't their own baby.
These aren't super-powerful arguments.

I go for organic milk because the cows are raised more humanely than on the factory farms that produce the "conventional" milk.

Jul 3 2013:
"Organic" just means "not pumped with antibiotics or hormones." They are still in small cages; still feed grains that are incompatible with their systems; still raped with metal rods for insemination; still permanently pregnant their very short lives until their utters are exhausted at which time they become hamburgers; still get hooked to mutilating, painful machines; still have their infants stolen from them to suffer the same fate or be shoved into immobilizing crates to be sold for their baby flesh. And no, a COW's milk is NOT the first food nature provides for a human. Would you suck directly on her udder all day (after doing all the things listed above to her yourself, experiencing her writing and screaming yourself)? What you should really be doing is breastfeeding from human females (we could make a farm for these human females, stuffing them into small cages; feeding then wheat all day; raping them with metal rods for insemination in order to force them to be permanently pregnant their very short lives until their breasts are exhausted at which time they could become dog food; hooking to mutilating, painful machines; and stealing their infants from them to suffer the same fate or be shoved into immobilizing crates to be sold for their baby flesh).

Jul 3 2013:
Additionally, even if you do insist on unproven plant sentience just in case (as frugivores do -- they just eat what is made to fall off the plant) then should the aim not be to do the minimum damage possible for one's own survival? (When you consume one pound of beef, you kill the cow and 7-13lbs of grain).

Jul 3 2013:
Aaaaaaand we seem to have also forgotten the ecological costs (livestock are responsible for more GHG emissions than transportation, in addition to water and soil pollution, and the use of a full third of our arable land, and incredible water consumption (100x as much water per pound of cow carcass as per pound of wheat) when there are droughts and 1.5 million children dying of starvation every year and the effects of anthropogenically accelerated climate change have already started damaging our world?

Jul 3 2013:
Well, Kelly, organic I believe means different things in different states. In California, for a farmer to call his milk organic, his cows have to graze on actual grass growing in a pasture at least 75% of the year. I'm not going to say these cows have a great life, but it is better than the "factory farms" where they are corralled rather densely in small corrals (although a corral is not quite as bad as a cage), and fed hay that has already been cut and is dumped in front of their corrals.

No, a cow's milk is not the same as a human mother's, but it is the closest we can get, it doesn't seem right to ask human mothers to provide milk for fellow adult human beings unrelated to them.

Again, I hate to say it, but the only way I feel at least moderately good physically is to live on milk. If I eat solid food, I feel bad physically, I think this includes vegetable dishes. Certainly I have it in mind to be as humane as possible, I pay twice as much for organic milk knowing the cows have a better life.

I hope we'll see more and more movement toward organic and even more radically humane ways to raise cows. What interests me the most is the Masai way of herding cows, where they take them to the plains all day and graze them on naturally growing grass. They are a tribe in Kenya, if you've never read about them, they're pretty interesting.

I still rank people above cows. If people feel better and perform better on cow milk than plants (which I do, and believe others do although they may not be as tuned in to it), I'm going to let the cows have discomfort rather than short the people.

Jul 3 2013:
"It doesn't seem right to ask human mothers to provide milk for fellow adult human beings unrelated to them" BUT MILK FROM ANOTHER SPECIES IS OKAY? (Again, NEVER meant for you in the first place! Suck on a cow's udder all day if you insist otherwise!)

Jul 3 2013:
Well, for me, milk from another species is okay. Honestly, Kelly, I have sympathy for animals, I'm the guy who will rescue a fallen baby bird and take it to an animal rescue, but, well, I don't really know why, to some degree I think it's just because I can, but I'm okay with people dominating animals. As I say, for myself, I believe I perform better on milk than I would on a vegan diet, and I would guess that others do, too, although they may not be as aware of it. Do you think people are more intelligent than animals, because if you agree people are more intelligent, wouldn't it indicate that animals don't suffer as much from being dominated as do humans, since they can't think about their situation as much.

I tend to think that cow's milk is actually the most cost-effective because it is so cheap. If you were to live on cow's milk, let's say of the conventional variety, you could live on two gallons a day, which would cost you six dollars, and you'd be well-fed and happy. Could you make a really satisfying vegan diet for a man for six dollars a day, when I do check vegetables in the store, they seem pretty costly. That's not even to talk about lost work-days, because I tell you, Kelly, people perform better on milk than they do on vegetables, and can do more work.

Jul 3 2013:
So surely you must be okay with people dominating other homo sapiens who merely happen to be powerless to them then -- you must be "okay" with robbery, rape, and murder. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" makes NO exclusionary clause for those powerless to you, it is entirely the point, because you would want others powerful enough to hurt you to decide not to.

If I can justify hurting others because I am more intelligent than them... then is it acceptable for me to exploit the 99.9% of the human population who scores lower than myself on an IQ test?

Again, not cost-effective, not cheap, look at those ecological costs. Beans and rice are cheaper, financially, ecologically, and ethically. And no, no we don't perform better on a pure cow-milk diet (our bodies are not made to digest even HUMAN milk after a couple years, much less the milk of another species), unless of course you have the peer-reiewed evidence to support that claim (I showed you Kaiser's paper on plant-based nutrition). Nutrition has nothing to do with "beliefs" and you cannot possibly know that your health would not improve if you do not TRY (and the scientific literature should give you a solid predictability of how much your health would improve).

Jul 5 2013:
Another advantage of living on milk is that there's so little cleanup, very little washing of dishes, waste of soap and hot water, rarely any food waste or garbage or food packaging to throw away. Every day I just carry a couple of empty plastic milk jugs to the recycling barrel.

I also think milk tastes better than vegan dishes, and I give human beings the right to eat food that tastes good.

I also think there is a natural balance where we cannot treat cows too badly or they will die, and we don't want that. Our own selfish interest in keeping cows alive forces us to treat them at least somewhat well.

Jul 5 2013:
False. Even if it's "free-range" and even if your find "grassfed" dairy, the cows are repeatedly raped them with metal rods to inseminate them so that they can be permanently pregnant and hooked to mutilating machines (that suck out blood and pus along with the milk) and life out very short lives before becoming hamburgers anyways and are torn from all of their infants who suffer the same fate or are crammed into immobilizing cages to be sold for their baby flesh all so that humans can drink her milk which was absolutely not meant for us anyways (we can't even digest human milk properly after infancy -- and go suck on a cow's udder) instead. And if not "free-range", she's in an immobilizing cage her whole short life. Literally ZERO of that can be called anything other than cruel, much less "somewhat well". Taste (no use to survival, or health (and detrimental to health, as discussed earlier in several links) and ps that taste habit goes away in a month anyways) =/= justification of violence.

Jul 5 2013:
Well, "rape" might be a slightly strong word, it does not seem to me that a cow is as terrified by being artificially inseminated as a human woman is by being raped. Are cows really permanently pregnant, when I've talked to dairy farmers I believe they suggested the cow keeps giving milk for up to a year after giving birth, so there is no need to immediately get her pregnant again. Are the machines mutilating, as I say we have a real interest in not mutilating valuable livestock. Do the cows mind being torn from their calves, they actually are not torn away immediately, they do nurse for a while, they rarely fight being separated, I don't know how they feel. I don't know about us not being able to digest milk, as I say I've been literally living on skim milk for the last five years and I definitely feel better than when I eat solid food. As far as that goes, I think milk will always taste better to me than vegetables, I've certainly had ample opportunity to compare the two, having been alive 53 years. I don't know, Kelly, I tend to believe that plants also suffer when we harvest them, for example I don't think an orange tree particularly enjoys being denuded of all its oranges in one fell swoop. I suppose all eating involves some exploitation of another creature, I guess we are just an apex predator, I'm okay with it.

Jun 17 2013:
In some places they have automated dairy farms. When the cow feels too heavy it gets into the milk sucking apparatus herself to be freed from the weight. They feel a lot better after that, and I am happy to drink the milk, have some cheese, et cetera.

Jun 17 2013:
I do not know very well if something that does not harm the animal, like drinking their milk, can be studied from the ethical point of view or not. I suppose yes. However, many other things can happen that, in different proportions, they are more or less harmful, and about which we do not have much control.

The parasitic insect that blood drawn to a cow and injects bacteria into her, is better or worse? When one cut flowers (who says that the plants do not feel, how we know it?) to decorate our homes, it is indifferent or is bad? And when we walk a stroll and crush to death dozens of ants or other small insects which we cannot see, perhaps we should be looking better down?

I do not know it. There are things that happen in a certain way, and what little we can do to change them. And if we could do something, and it spread massively, the world could change, I do not know whether for better or for worse.

All the questions are interesting, the answers are, because the ideas that underlie, the arguments that move them, teach us something all that possibly had not even thought.

Jun 17 2013:
@Sean , thanks. your other questions of parasitic insect, is good. my problem was we did not feel wrong or unfair drinking milk, but thats probably not the case of parasite insect. they are part of food chain and they are meant to do so. We as human species, can think, try to justice, behave fair and so many... that's why I said un-ethical.

Jun 17 2013:
Yes, I totally agree with you. What I'd like to remark is that I see as very positive the contemplation of any question or issue from several point of views. That's - I think- what enriches us.
Thanks again for your question, I consider it very interesting.

Cows are fully sentient, capable of pain and pleasure, fear and desire, families and friendships, just like humans. Dairy milk means the mother is raped with a metal rod repeatedly throughout her short life before she becomes a hamburger in order to be made permanently pregnant (excepting 2-3 months between pregnancies) and hooked up to a machine that sucks out pus and blood, and her babies are torn from her to suffer the same fate or become veal in their first week of life, so that we can drink her milk, which was in zero way meant for our bodies, instead. We treat other species as we would definitely NOT hope a species in our dominant position would treat us, which is morally hypocritical and unjustifiable.

Additionally, animal products are unhealthy for us, the healthiest diet is plant-based nutrition (see veganbodybuilding.com to shatter any preconceived (culturally-enforced) notions about unhealthy veganism!). And on top of that, livestock require incredible amounts of water and their metabolisms take away from the food supply that could be used instead for the 1.5 million children who die of starvation every year (livestock use 1/3 of our arable land) -- and livestock contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, so in terms of the disastrous effects of climate change, it is necessary for us to STOP consuming animal products.

Ultimately, they do not need to suffer and die for us to live, so we must treat them as we would have those in power over us treat us.

Jun 16 2013:
Since long our ethical standard has not been changed regarding this , so it's ethical so far. However you are right animal milks are for their babies and human system is not fully aligned to digest animal milk in many cases so there are lot of people who suffers from a medical condition named Milk Intolerance or to be more specific Lactose Intolerance. Technology has created alternative like soya milk .

Jun 18 2013:
You are right. Same happens to cheese and also lactose free milk is fine . In all these instances application of human science and technology is necessary but in natural form after collecting it from animal some people can't tolerate milk.

That being said human being, being omnivorous found its food from varied natural sources of which one is milk .

Jul 12 2013:
Indeed, it is very sad. Luckily we do not require such violence for our health, as we are optimally healthy on a balanced "plant-based" diet without animal products!! So we do not have to support such brutality! :)

Jul 2 2013:
Kelly, you seemed to refer to "do unto others" commandment below which comes from Christianity which, in turn, is based on the idea of dying for others to live. Yet, now you say "no one needs to die for us to live".

Sacrificing others so that we can live is immoral. Sacrificing ourselves so that others can live is the acme of morality.

Curbing our own needs is moral. Telling others what they need seems to contradict the "do unto others", "do not judge", and many other commandments. Does it not?

These morality discussions seem to always go in circles. Unless we turn into plants, we inevitably consume living organisms for food. And even plants use products of death and decomposition of other organisms.

I have posted this story before, but I can't help posting it here:

"A wise Zen frog was explaining to the younger frogs the balance of nature: "Do you see how that fly eats a gnat? And now (with a bite) I eat the fly. It is all part of the great scheme of things."
"Isn't it bad to kill in order to live?" asked the thoughtful frog.
"It depends . . ." answered the wise frog just as a snake swallowed the Zen frog in one chomp before the frog finished his sentence.
"Depends on what?" shouted the students.
"Depends on whether you're looking at things from the inside or outside," came the muffled response from inside the snake."

Jul 2 2013:
Telling others to stop hurting others contradicts no moral rule, only repressive Victorian "respect" (which means subservience to authority). The golden rule is about not being a hypocrite, is about not hurting others because if you would want them to not hurt you if they had the ability. Plants are not sentient, they don't kick and struggle and cry and scream when they are being beaten and slaughter, like you and a cow do. We do not live in a pre-agrarian society that involves a "circle of life", we have agriculture, we have enough plants to eat that we do not have to hurt other fully sentient beings as we would NOT have them hurt us were they the ones in our dominant position.

Jul 2 2013:
The golden rule seems to work only when others like what we like. What if they don't? Listen to Rihanna:

"Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But chains and whips
Excite me

Na na na na
Come on
Come on
Come on
I like it"

It may be OK for Rihanna to say that she likes whips and chains. It does not seem to be OK for her to whip another person quoting "do unto others" and claiming that the other person must enjoy it. Unfortunately, that's how people often use the golden rule.

I'm trying to illustrate the absurdity of the moral reasoning. Morality is based on feelings and emotions - not on reason.

Reason always finds the way to justify what we like:
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
- David Hume

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion."
- Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)

Another couple of quotes that I posted, perhaps, dozens of times on TED.

Humane treatment of animals seems to be not about the animals. I don't think, animals have any rights. Animal rights seem to be about how we feel about OURSELVES.

Jul 2 2013:
Otherwise you are just trying as hard as you can to justify hurting others when you are smart enough to know it is wrong to do so when such violence is not necessary for your survival (much less your health). Animal rights = human responsibility. Just like racial, gender, or sexuality within-the-homo-sapiens-species-designation rights. Look up "Meat Video" or "From Farm to Fridge" or "Earthlings" or just YouTube "dairy farm" and tell me that their screaming and struggling is a sign of how much they love being your slaves. Remember how in the 1800s, rich pale-skinned slave drivers insisted that people with decidedly sufficiently dark pigmentation WANTED to be subservient, even couldn't survive without being slaves to the white folk? When you say "empathy is purely emotional" (in an opposition to reason) it seems you have yet to acknowledge that we evolved empathetic capacities as NECESSARY to our formation of social bonds, which are necessary to our survival as we are social animals (like all the animals we enslave and brutalize ans slaughter for our taste habits).

I know, it's very controversial. And that's my point. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but you seem to adopt an extreme point of view. And it's extremism that I oppose - not veganism. Your point about slaves and racism was exactly my point that I tried to make quoting Rihanna's song. But don't you see yourself in your own words? You suggest that everyone else would benefit from your idea of healthy diet and would like to convince people that that's what they need and want.

To prove your position, you appeal to emotions. Using emotionally charged imagery is a very known technique which has been used for centuries. It was used by Goebbels to portray Jews as filthy and evil people; Soviet propaganda portrayed capitalist countries as greedy war-mongers; images of beheaded people and women with burnt faces are used to portray Muslims as evil; atheists tell stories of Inquisition, witch-burning, and religiously motivated atrocities to "expose" evils of religion; jihadists depict Americans as baby-killers. I'm sorry, but when I see someone holding up bloody pictures to prove their point, it tells me that there is an agenda behind the message. These techniques are often *causing* violence and are used to justify violence rather than prevent it.

I prefer to judge myself, not others. Not judging others is not the same as approving their actions.

I agree with what you say and I do see how my own words can be viewed as judgmental. I just want to point out that not everyone shares your viewpoint and that does not mean that people are cruel.

Jul 2 2013:
Kelly,you almost had me until you lamented about the slave owners. A despicable situation but had some truth.
It seems in those days when one African tribe attacked their neighbors and won, they would killed the warriors of the defeated tribe and take the women and children as slaves. The rational was dead enemies, no counterattack. It seems that some smart Arab traders figured out they could broker the sale of the defeated tribes into slavery. Out of Africa, out of mind for the victors and some really good trade goods. Of course, those sold for the most part didn't survive the trip and those that did were treated like livestock. Now some did escape, some where treated well, most were just alive.
So, with that ancestory, you are thinking that people would be overly concerned about where or how their next steak is being prepared for them except with a touch or seasoning

Jul 3 2013:
Dude it's really simple: If you want protection and justice against those more powerful than you should they desire to hurt you (if you would hope that someone would save you if you were being stabbed to death or if you would call the police should someone rob you), you must be merciful to those powerless to you. Otherwise for what reason should those more powerful than yourself not exploit you?

Milking cows is, perhaps, not the greatest of the evils in this world. If you ask me, feeding a hungry child with a steak made from a ruthlessly murdered and butchered with a bloody axe helpless cow seems perfectly moral.

Jul 3 2013:
As previously stated, when necessary to survival (and even health), it is hard to argue. For you and I, the consumption of animal products is utterly unnecessary. No one needs to die for us to live. If I had rats in my house, NO FRAKKING WAY would I use arsenic or traps that would hurt them just because their paws threaten my health, because I could find a way to coax them out, probably by leading them somewhere else with a trail of breadcrumbs (or lure them to one spot with food and wait to trap them in a box and then immediately take them outside to the bushes -- basically what I do with spiders). If you want to feed starving children, stop feeding the metabolisms of your carcasses instead. YOU do not need anyone to die for YOU to live, and by continuing to consume animal products, you are redirecting food and water resources that could go to the children you mention, and you are contributing more emissions than transportation (1 cow carcass burger = 20mi + soil erosion and water pollution and ps antibiotic-resistant superbug breeding), AND you are forcing others to live out painful brief lives before they die violently when such brutalization is of ZERO necessity to your safety or even health.

In a way, I admire your passion. I don't deny that I may survive on vegetables, perhaps, even may get healthier. Just be easier on us, sinners. We don't want another war because we don't share each other's beliefs and food tastes.

Jul 3 2013:
So all of your animal products are from holistically managed ranches? And even if they are, do the cows still want to be slaughtered for your utterly unnecessary taste habit?

Easy =/= just. Racists find it easy to reduce people into one of two categories based on their skin colour and hate the one they don'r cram themselves into, that doesn't make the harm they do the other "race" acceptable.

You are forcing others to die for you "beliefs" (for your utterly unnecessary (and ps unhealthy AND eco-destructive) HABIT). My "belief" is that I should treat those powerless to me as I would have those to whom I am powerless treat me. If I hurt others merely because I feel like it, I must concede that same justification to anyone who tries to rob, rape, or murder me.

As we realize that we are a part of larger communities and systems, our moral beliefs extend to people of different sex, race, religion, nation, etc. But where do we stop? It appears that the natural extension of this process would be to extend moral beliefs to other species and living organisms as well.

Where do you draw the line? Is it OK to eat a carrot? Does the carrot want to be eaten?

Here is another Zen story:
"One day Chuang Tzu and a friend were walking by a river. "Look at the fish swimming about," said Chuang Tzu, "They are really enjoying themselves."
"You are not a fish," replied the friend, "So you can't truly know that they are enjoying themselves." "You are not me," said Chuang Tzu. "So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?"